What is the main tactic of proclaiming a scientific "consensus" on climate change?

By consensus I take it you mean about 75 well paid people some of whom are not even scientists.

Unluckily i haven't seen many actual scientific studies on canine training as a entire. One bit of study that i would really love to look is a safely completed study on the usage of different training tools. Certain there are a couple available in the market however the ones that i've read simplest exhibit me that those certain researchers were simplest fluent in using a couple of tools. The relaxation were used haphazardly and incorrectly. Some have been used incorrectly ample to practically be cruel. My coaching philospthy is situated on what seems to work for me and my scholars. There is some science however i've discovered that the study has no longer saved up with the learning that's achieved now. So much of it is trial and mistake. What would fairly make a study legitimate for me is that the men and women doing the research have proficient a dog to a complicated degree. This manner they'd have an working out what is required in the field and the steps that it takes to get there. I feel that as a whole it has triggered some poorly trained puppies all within the title of science. Once more these are pets and no longer working puppies. I to find that almost all working canine trainers use a balanced process of their canine training. This in turn is what makes for a well knowledgeable dog. To me the instrument used does not subject near as a lot because the process.

A scientific consensus is not about scientists getting together to vote. A scientific consensus is where the evidence is so compelling, that scientists must acknowledge the evidence. Like when you touch a hot stove, you will get burned.

Personally, I prefer to let people see the evidence of AGW, rather than talk about consensus. Scientists don't believe in AGW because other scientists do; they believe in AGW because of the evidence. While we need to respect experts, being educated is preferable. What I most commonly present is that global warming is happening

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2010/images/wa...

And we are causing it

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Human_Fingerp...

The word "consensus" is not found on either of these figures.

<There are two aspects to the climate change issue or more specifically, AGW. The first is whether the Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution and man has been responsible to some percentage. The second aspect is whether the the CO2 component of man's warming will be amplified causing a positive feedback leading to catastrophic or at least very damaging warming with most evidence based on the climate model projections of temperature rise, sea level rise, etc which likely means a need to cut CO2.>

I agree that there is considerable uncertainty about the second aspect. And there is confusion in the media about the uncertainty of the second aspect. This has more to do with the media, rather than "warmist" scientists and the IPCC pushing an agenda. I doubt that this confusion is because of Al Gore paying journalists off, but rather, few journalists, "warmer" or "skeptic" have formal scientific training.

<<<Do you think the consensus, while asking questions regarding the first part, is trying to encompass both parts?>>>

Both of the original parts, yes. Both of your parts, no.

<<<Do you think most of the public has any idea of this?>>>

You're asking if most of the public realizes that the survey isn't asking about any doomsday scenarios? Are you kidding?

Most of the public (American, anyway) don't even know that scientists agree on the first question.

http://environment.yale.edu/climate/files/ClimateB...

(Question 30, pg 4). Asked: "To the best of your knowledge, what proportion of climate scientists think that global warming is happening?"

Choices:

A. 81 to 100%

B. 61 to 80%

C. 41 to 60%

D. 21 to 40%

E. 0 to 20%

F. Don't know enough to say

The most popular choice at 31% was choice F. Only 13% of people chose answer A -- and you have to assume that some of those were just lucky guesses.

This wasn't about what was causing the warming, it was simply asking how many scientists think that global warming is *happening*. And they didn't even get that right. So no, of course they are not walking around with the false impression that the "97%" surveys imply that scientists agree with all of the doomsday scenarios of AGW. They don't even know that these surveys exist. You're three steps ahead down a path that most people haven't even turned their head toward with any serious interest.

A camel is a horse designed by the consensus of a committee.

You get a thousand eggheads together and pay them you will get any consensus you want. Of course some eggheads will compromise for free. Just because you have a degree doesn't mean you have integrity.

Yes that $5000 is a couple of loaded questions. Car salesmen, vacuum cleaner salesmen, snake oil salesmen and a host of other salesmen use this tactic.

I would respect the opinion of one scientist with integrity over all those in the IPCC.

Quote by Will Harper, Princeton University physicist, former Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy: “I had the privilege of being fired by Al Gore, since I refused to go along with his alarmism....I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect....Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science. The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past.”

Quote by Madhav L. Khandekar, UN scientist, a retired Environment Canada scientist: "Unfortunately, the IPCC climate change documents do not provide an objective assessment of the earth's temperature trends and associated climate change….As one of the invited expert reviewers for the 2007 IPCC documents, I have pointed out the flawed review process used by the IPCC scientists in one of my letters. I have also pointed out in my letter that an increasing number of scientists are now questioning the hypothesis of Greenhouse gas induced warming of the earth's surface and suggesting a stronger impact of solar variability and large-scale atmospheric circulation patterns on the observed temperature increase than previously believed."

Consensus of a select few silences the 31,000 and men like these.

the vast majority of scientists do not work in climate, so the 97% is meaningless unless you attach caveats. Probably 99% of the population would not believe time dilation in relativity or quantum mechanics either. Surveys do not reflect nature's reality. The laws of physics don't care what you think.

there is a big difference between being a skeptic and a denier. Most of the public have no scientific training and many are swayed by media who are more interested in ratings than complex problems.

You are once again grasping at straws qwith questions that have no real bearing on GW//, only generating opinion about a subject that has been beaten to death because you deniers can't come up with any legitimate peer reviewed content by a real climatologist. You are denying reality Mike but I hope you are secretly reducing your carbon footprint for the future of O Mikes to come.

And this is why I make a very clear distinction between skeptics and denialists.

There are plenty of people here on Y!A who will *not* agree with the statements "mean global temperatures have risen" and "human activity is a significant contributing factor". Look at some of the answers to some of my recent questions, for example. A few direct quotes from them:

"I'm more than 100% certain( a little dana nutcase lingo) that global warming is the biggest fraud in human history ever"

"I'm 99.879% sure that human beings can cause no measurable impact on the climate of the earth, either accidentally or purposely."

"You can and will call CO2 anything you wish. Does it function like the glass on a greenhouse? No." (in a response to a question that was asking, among other things, if CO2 is a greenhouse gas)

"I am 100 % sure that man made CO2 has no significant effect on global warming"

"AGW is hooey, it's on a par with the global cooling scare of the 1970's."

Given quotes like that, is it any wonder that we're still mostly focusing the discussion on whether AGW *is* happening, since there are so many people vehemently insisting that it isn't?

And, I do not rely on a vote of 95+% of extant scientists to tell me that positive feedbacks are likely to outweigh negative ones. I rely at least in part on things like the fact that we have had relatively dramatic climate changes from relatively small initial inputs in the past (afaik, something like a 2% change in temperature from a .1% change in solar irradiance, or the like), which suggests that positive feedbacks generally outweigh negative ones (when it comes to warming, at least).

To disregard 'scientific consensus' meaning that the majority of scientists agree with an argument is crazy. Particularly when those that are rejecting it have little or no study in the field and base their opinions on what they hear from others outside of the scientific community. That being said, as many have argued, science is not based on consensus but on real world data. The ones who actively study and are involved in the data gathering process more than likely knows quite a lot more about the subject than the common layman. You are correct that any knowledgeable skeptic does agree with those two questions. However, certain aspects of those two questions are repeatedly argued against in here. Some are even claiming that it is cooling yet in other threads they claim it is warming. Are these really the type of people you want to be involved with and argue for? You've given many of these same people best answers in the past and your choices of best answers go against what you are attempting to argue here.

I have provided more than enough evidence for both the questions before in my posts here. Instead of 'debating' AGW proponents or AGW disbelievers why don't we instead look at debates centered around actual climatologists? They know a whole lot more what they are talking about than what the general population is. And if we do that we come back to that 95% consensus thing again which many opponents commonly call a conspiracy as they claim with anyone knowledgeable in the subject is part of.

Your questions are getting more and more desperate. That is to be expected as the objective narrative shows your intellectual (and I use the term loosely) position to be untenable. But even for you, this is gibberish and reflects such an infantile view of the two questions above that I suspect a middle-school student got ahold of your Yahoo password.

I think you are mistaken and judging from the response of the skeptics here, they object to parts 1 and 2, and 3 and 4, and 5 and 6, of the whole theory to the point you, and they, will believe any old bucket of hogwash thrown up on a blog. The point of the "consensus" is to demonstrate that as far as the theory of climate goes, the major unknowns are relatively unimportant in establishing that if we were to act as responsible beings, we would regulate CO2 emissions because the preponderance of evidence indicates it will do huge damage to the planet's ecosystems. Obviously, you reject that.

The forums where scientists formulate consensuses are the national science academies. 13 such academies including the U.S. and Canada issued a joint statement three years ago.

"The need for urgent action to address climate change is now indisputable."

"However, climate change is happening even faster than previously estimated; global CO2 emissions since 2000 have been higher than even the highest predictions, Arctic sea ice has been melting at rates much faster than predicted, and the rise in the sea level has become more rapid. Feedbacks in the climate system might lead to much more rapid climate changes."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/includes/G8+5ener...

These science academies and the IPCC make the consensus clearly to understand. It is time to stop claiming there is none.

Among real climate scientists the only real debates are around rates and how to express uncertainties.

"Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for — and in many cases is already affecting — a broad range of human and natural systems"

"The core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations."

-- National Academy of Science

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsite...